D&D General Is character class an in-world concept in your campaigns?

[Blue]

Class is a rules mechanical concept, not an in-world concept. Now, words such as "fighter" or "wizard" might be used at times, but so could "warrior" or "mage" - it's not a class. Also, people are unique - the PCs follow class rules, but nothing says others do, and most (almost all) do not.

This is reinforced by the NPCs in the monster manual, where the same name is used but it's definitely for an in-game description and not the actual class. For example there's a Druid, who has 4th level casting but no wildshape. If "Druid" referred in-game to the class, that would not be called a druid.

 

[clearstream]

Class is a rules mechanical concept, not an in-world concept. Now, words such as "fighter" or "wizard" might be used at times, but so could "warrior" or "mage" - it's not a class. Also, people are unique - the PCs follow class rules, but nothing says others do, and most (almost all) do not.

This is reinforced by the NPCs in the monster manual, where the same name is used but it's definitely for an in-game description and not the actual class. For example there's a Druid, who has 4th level casting but no wildshape. If "Druid" referred in-game to the class, that would not be called a druid.

I feel like labels like class are shorthand, ultimately. Their use depends on what value is gained from talking around the subject.

So I do agree with you that those (what I call) character-class-equivalents (CCEQs for short) in the MM and similar imply a lot more flexibility in the collections of features associated with classes than is represented in the PHB (and relevant supplements). Still, an MM mage casts wizard spells. An MM mage has no school, but a VGtM abjurer evidently does have one: suggesting an in-world organisation or categorisation.

That makes me feel that an in-world person might guess at the kinds of things a CCEQ or PC will be capable of, based on observation of other things they are capable of along with any organisational labels they know to be applicable, e.g. they might guess that a mage could cast magic missile.

I assume awareness of power sources and feature groups. No doubt the language if overheard in-world would be more roundabout, but it amounts to X is a Y, so X's capabilities very well could include Z. As a DM, I don't mind players abbreviating that using class appellations, and I do likewise. It doesn't bother me if players call Mordenkainen a "wizard", for example. In my campaign he was a modified archmage. Calling someone a wizard amounts to a prediction about what they might be capable of. It's a convenient label because the nth time I take up time at the table waffling about circles and puissance... could hold low value.

Like other posters, I feel like this knowledge would be scalable. One NPC could have a very clear knowledge of paladins and their tiers. Another might never have heard of them. I would not differentiate between casters and melee in that regard, because all classes in D&D have preternatural abilities.

 

[Azzy]

That'd be a big NO.

 

[Yaarel]

Do classes exist as identities in world?

There can be groups whose members are the same class. High Elf tree-town militias are mainly Eldritch Knights. The scholars of a wizard academy are Wizards. The Norse-esque shamans are psionic Bards. And so on.



Level is an in-world identity! Levels 1 to 4 are all students or the equivalent. Levels 5 to 8 are all professionals or the equivalent. Levels 9 to 12 are all masters or the equivalent, and tend to head an institution (academy, business, fortress, guild, etcetera). Levels 13 to 16 are political elites. Level 17 to 20 are legends in every way.

The identity of leveling tier is pretty clear.

 

[Mercule]

Nope. I absolutely hate the notion and have gone out of my way to make trying to do so confusing, in my home brew world. I have a nation with an elite military group called "rangers", that are actually well known for their arcane knowledge -- they started as explorers and, effectively, state-sanctioned adventurers, but the arcane knowledge kinda piled up. There's also a group known as "paladins", and they tend toward the religious zealot, lawful good, stick up the butt sort, but their unwavering incorruptibility turned into a major political liability and they were exiled. So, while they still have a lot of actual paladins in their number, along with folks of other classes, to actually be a paladin pretty much makes one an outcast.

 

[digitalelf]

I know 2nd edition is a different animal than 5th edition, but as an example of how class is an in-game concept in 2nd edition, the World of Greyhawk "From the Ashes" boxed set details an organization of Rangers that protect the Gnarly Forest. They are called the "Rangers of the Forest". They are in fact, Rangers.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

While I know some really like the idea that NPCs don't have to follow the same rules as PCs, I've never cared for it. The way I look at it, 5e strikes a balance by making NPC statblocks that represent simplified class members for quick use rather than ongoing development.

The alternative that everyone else in the world works one way, and whatever party of adventures you are playing in a particular campaign are each the sole representative of their organized skill set (despite the fact that the class write-ups tend to imply there are many people of each class and subclass), is inherently unsatisfying to me, as someone who runs a "persistent world" D&D campaign, where more than one group of players and characters can participate in the world's ongoing history.

 

[Li Shenron]

So, is character class an in-world concept in your campaigns?

Yes.

A few classes like Fighter, Barbarian and Rogue are more loose, so it makes sense that everyone belonging to a barbarian tribe is called "Barbarian" no matter their class (if they have any). It's possible for someone with the class being then referred to as a "true Barbarian". But we really never gave too much thoughts to labels.

The rest of the classes easily have a strong identity in the fantasy world.

 

[Hussar]

I'd go with "sometimes". It really depends on how tightly wound the lore is in a given class. Paladins, of whatever Oath, are pretty strongly tied to the lore of their class. It would be difficult to mistake a paladin for anything else. Other classes, like fighter and rogue? Not so much. Both are largely interchangeable and frankly, unless someone is dropping a spell, how would you tell a ranger from a fighter?

 

[clearstream]

The alternative that everyone else in the world works one way, and whatever party of adventures you are playing in a particular campaign are each the sole representative of their organized skill set...

This seems to be saying that envisioning flexibility in collections of features forces us to believe that PCs are sole representatives of their class as presented in the PHB. I think one could decide that, but it is not forced. Rather one can envision flexibility and that the PHB classes are well populated.

So in my world I envision that there could be a "wizard" who lacks arcane recovery, yet still casts as a wizard and draws spells from the wizard spell list, and might even have a wizard school. They would be identified as a wizard.

... how would you tell a ranger from a fighter?

The ranger is the one who can't get lost